beau_safken said:
No offense but even swords are made for slashing and breaking bones. Not the way all the movies and such make it out that its all lightsaber like. With all the armor that was worn in the old days, the sword was more of less a way of breaking bones and slashing to cause casualties not actually killing a person. Course, thats a pretty broad idea but i'm sure you all get the idea.
Yeah, I think there is truth in what you say. A battlefield sword was both sharp, but also relied on a cleaving impact to do damage and break bones or at least cause trauma if the armor prevented an actual cut.
Regarding the Chinese sword, there is a distinction between the Gentleman's (scholar's) sword, and the Battle sword.
The Gentleman's sword was lighter, and meant to be carried by a civilian for personal protection. It was not meant to stand up to heavy battlefield use, nor cut thru armor, so it was much lighter, but razor sharp. A Gentleman's sword would be quickly destroyed on a battlefield.
The Battle sword was meant to stand up to heavy, prolonged use and cut thru armor (to the extent possible, anyway), and so had a much heavier and more durable blade. This also made it slower, and required greater strenght to use.
Tho I can't give specific examples, I believe this difference in size, weight, and purpose of the weapon would also mandate a difference in technique. I think technique for a Gentleman's sword would be quicker, and more precise to attack lethal targets that probably were not covered in armor. A Battle sword would be more bold and ferocious, because lethal targets would more likely be protected by some kind of armor, so the weapon just needed to hit hard to cause damage.